Creative Guitar & Bass Design

There is a problem that has plagued the guitar (and bass) industry for at least 60 years, a problem made visible by the legacy of Les Paul.

Gibson's Les Paul guitar is a distinctive shape, an iconic shape. There is a subliminal math to its contours, deeply rooted in acoustic guitar tradition — but missing a bite — and our collective subconsciousness instinctively grasps this design. It is instantly recognizable from across the music store showroom, or a packed arena.

On an abstract symbolic level, that shape now represents electric guitar in Western culture. And that's the problem.

The downside of success is imitation. The Les Paul is scavenged by an incestuous cycle of derivative copies spiraling in tighter and tighter circles, until the remains are picked over in a courtroom by those large enough to muscle in on the carcass.

Quarter Inch War.

PHOTO: NEW FOR 2009 model guitar that is "Unlike any guitar before it." Of course. We've never seen this shape before. Example ad was randomly selected from a catalog. Name blurred to protect perp's identity.

Despite the millions of dollars spent on lawsuits, the original Les Paul shape emerges unscathed. Have you ever met a guitarist who really wants to own a Les Paul clone?

Clones seem to be purchased mostly because of issues with cost or quality. Which means market share gained or lost by Gibson is primarily due to their own (internal) struggle.Do you think this same principle applies to other iconic designs as well?

Curiosity

I love this haiku by Matsuo Basho written in the mid-1600s:

don't imitate me
it's as boring
as the two halves of a melon

You want to create the next iconic design. Where to begin? I think it begins with curiosity. It depends what questions you ask.

Problem vs. Solution

Let's use Leo Fender's ubiquitous Precision bass as a starting point for our thought exercise. If you stare at his designs too long, however, you will find it difficult to imagine anything new. So let's ask a question instead:

Q: What problem was Leo trying to solve?

The outline below is a methodology that consistently works well for me. It is ingrained habit, and I use it — consciously or subconsciously — every time I approach a design issue:

I. CLARIFY

• What problem am I trying to solve?
• What solutions have been tried before?

II. BRAINSTORM

• Sketch, doodle, make notes
• Generate ideas without judgment
• Take risks
• Consider opposites
• Try variations
• Take a break
• Collaborate with a partner

III. EDIT

• Set restrictions
• Redefine the problem
• Evaluate and prioritize

IV. REPEAT

I've noticed my brain can not work in more than one of these modes simultaneously. For example, it is impossible to brainstorm and edit at the same time because imaginative and critical thinking are separate functions. Your experiences may vary. For an alternate take, especially when recording music, check out Brian Eno's Oblique Strategies.

PHOTO: Orchid is one of many possible solutions to the problems a young woman was having struggling to play a Precision bass. We began the design by determining what was working well for her, what was not, and why. Drawing to scale.

Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License

Comments

[Roger Placer]

I think the only thing truly cloned about the Vox Virage (sorry) is the exterior body shape. If you look at the design features of this instrument, it's got some cool stuff going on. A guitar like this seems to aim for folks who want a traditional looking axe, but who appreciate refined engineering. Check out the internal chambers and "tone bars," the one piece aluminum bridge/tail, and the new type of pickup: http://www.voxvirage.com/

Now this is just a randomly selected "perp" as you stated, and there are others that are far more derivative. But I think that the pursuit of unique designs - while it has a noble purpose even without a practical end, in the way that all art does - really benefits from a raison d'etre.

In other words, if you are going to scrap the blueprints that have defined the look of electric guitar for the past 60 years, what is the reason why? Because you loathe sameness and crave uniqueness? OK; that's wonderful. Look at Ulrich Teuffel's guitars - wow, there's some wacky (and kinda beautiful) stuff. But I'd argue that his designs are not so much altered for the player's benefit, but for proof of concept... for aesthetic experimentation... for "artistic statement." They are unique for the sake of being unique. At the end of the day, they are a very bizarre looking type of Stratocaster.

There are many ways to be unique. One place I'd like to see innovation is in the form of materials. Make a Les Paul that is a solid body instrument and weighs 6 lbs. Don't make it chambered! It has to be solid. Invent precise, nearly invisible controls so I don't have to turn knobs. Let me set the cut-off frequency of my tone control and the attenuation of my volume control digitally. Apple sells iPods by the gazillion and they have teeny batteries and absurdly miniscule electronics. Show me some of that in a guitar.

I've prattled on too long. BTW, I bought a 2009 Les Paul Standard the day Les died. It's a great guitar!

[Rick Toone]

Roger — Electronics is another frontier that is absolutely ripe for investigation (like persimmon wine). Why not learn from Apple?

PS: I admire Ulrich Teuffel for pushing the envelope. At some point, hemlines will adjust.

[Mats Eriksson]

Hi! When reading their site they claim both this and that to be ergonomic. Ahem... VOX guitar. Well basically nothing has happened, they just try to sell something. A Parker Fly or Parker guitars could very well make a lightweight Les Paul. Also, as time passes, the digitally controlled stuff, doesn't last as long as a few ordinary analog pots. Chips wears out and is impossible to find a replacement, so you'll end up having to buy a new guitar.

Remember the SynthAxxe? Allan Holdsworth owns two and none of them can be brought up to playing condition anymore, no spare parts exists. He's chasing around those few in the world who bought it and wants to buy their SynthAxxeses so he can strip them of parts.

Too much incoroporated electronics that is important for any guitar to function at all, is in the long run, a dead end.

[Rick Toone]

Mats — yours is also a valid (contrary) perspective on instrument electronics. I tend to follow more this school of thought, i.e., simple is best. Less to go wrong, and no batteries in landfills.

[goran]

Hello everyone,

For me playing a LP shaped guitar - and many other of course - feels like walking in shoes that are one size too small. I like shoes that are...invisible for my foot. I want to walk and not to think about my shoes. Only than I can enjoy walking.
The same parallel could be drawn with the guitars. When ergonomics (and personal preferences: nut-width, fret size etc...) are taken care of than we can move to the next part: sound. And last and least important - look.

Note: Since I am self thought my knowledge of English language is somewhat limited. Some sentences might be formulated in a wrong way. I hope that it is okay to type few words here sometimes...

Cheers

[Rick Toone]

Goran — I wish more people thought as you do. The reality we'll face moving forward is a slow adjustment period as tastes change and retro-infatuation fades.

That said, even the most daring new designs will also need to be aesthetically beautiful. Males are visual, and we are drawn to female forms. A Les Paul, on end, is Venus after a few good meals and several glasses of wine.

Curves!

PS: Your English is excellent, my friend. Share your thoughts more often.

[Weimer]

Great advice, thank you! There is nothing good enough for everyone (that's why we are trying to create new!) but classics are classics because are good enough for almost everyone and because they shaped the sound of the second half of the 20th century. "A Les Paul is a Venus..." is going to be my nick in msn for the next few days, great.